J. R. Flohr, PhD
NutriQuest, Mason City, IA
Leman Conference September, 2016
Introduction
• Kornegay and Notter (1983) were the first to develop
prediction equations for the effect of floor space on
...
Marketing Events
• Increases in available resources for those pigs
remaining in pens (trough space, water space,
floor spa...
Introduction
• Other social factors have been implicated
with floor space as influencers of growth
performance.
• Group si...
Database development
• Data from both refereed and non-refereed publications
were included.
• Studies evaluating floor spa...
Predictor variables
• k (0.016 to 0.052)
• Floor space, m2 (0.21 to 1.39 m2)
• Study length, d (10 to 133)
• Initial BW, k...
Final Models BIC
ADG, g =337.57+(16,468 × k)-(237,350 × k2)-(3.1209 ×
Initial BW, kg)+(2.5690 × Final BW,
kg)+(71.6918 × k...
806
813 816
807
828
847
750
800
850
0.60 0.65 0.70 0.60 0.65 0.70
ADG,gComparing ADG across weight ranges
Space, m2:
25 to...
Comparing ADFI effects across weight ranges
25 to 80 kg 80 to 130 kg
2202 2212 2216
2765
2805
2843
2000
2200
2400
2600
280...
Comparing GF effects across weight ranges
25 to 80 kg 80 to 130 kg
0.366 0.367 0.368
0.292 0.295 0.298
0.200
0.250
0.300
0...
Conclusions
• Assembled a robust database with published papers
spanning the last 31 years.
• General linear mixed models ...
Intercept adjustment
• Discrepancies in health, genetics, and other
environmental factors can influence growth.
• To adjus...
Space calculator (www.KSUswine.org)
Predicted Growth (240-300)
Average pig wt at
Marketing,lb
Overall Period 1 and 2
(240-300 lbs)
240 260 ADG ADFI F/G
Pigs m...
J. R. Flohr1*, M. D. Tokach1, S. S. Dritz1, R. D. Goodband1, J.
M. DeRouchey1, J. F. Patience2, and G. Gourley3
1Kansas St...
Objective
• Evaluate initial stocking density and
marketing removal strategies on the growth
of finishing pigs up to 310 l...
Materials and Methods
• A total of 1,092 pigs (PIC 359 × Genetiporc F25;
initially 80.0 lb) were used in a 117-d study.
• ...
Materials and Methods
• Experimental Treatments
• 1. Initial floor space allowance of 9.8 ft2 (15 pigs/pen)
with no pigs r...
Materials and Methods
• For pens stocked at 9.8 ft2 (15 pigs per pen), 1 hole
per feeder was blocked providing linear trou...
Treatment
Initial floor space,
ft2: 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0
Marketing strategy: --- 2:2:2 2:4 6
Day of study
d 64 --- 2 (10%) --- ...
15 vs. 21 pigs per pen
15 21
Effect of initial stocking density and
marketing strategy on ADG
floor space, ft2: 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0
Marketing strategy: ---...
Effect of initial Stocking density and
marketing strategy on ADFI
Bolded values are periods following a marketing event
Fl...
d 0 to 117 ADG, lb
2.04
1.99
1.95
1.92
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0
--- 2:2:2 2:4 6
ADG,lb
SEM = 0.02
a
a,b
b,c
c
S...
d 0 to 117 ADFI, lb
5.69
5.28 5.26 5.28
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0
--- 2:2:2 2:4 6
ADFI,lb
SEM = 0.05
a
b b
...
d 0 to 117 F/G
2.79
2.65
2.70
2.75
2.60
2.75
2.90
9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0
--- 2:2:2 2:4 6
F/G
SEM = 0.02
c
a
a,b
b,c
Space, ft2:
M...
Average BW of pigs marketed, kg
Treatment
Floor space, ft2 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0
Marketing strategy: --- 2:2:2 2:4 6
BW, lb
d 64...
d 0 to 117 Adjusted F/G
2.75 2.74
2.77
2.79
2.60
2.75
2.90
9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0
--- 2:2:2 2:4 6
AdjustedF/G
SEM = 0.02
Space, f...
CV of BW within pen
Treatment
Floor space, ft2 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0
Marketing strategy: --- 2:2:2 2:4 6
d 0 16 15 15 14
d 64 (B...
Economic Factors
Treatment
Floor space, ft2: 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0
Marketing strategy: --- 2:2:2 2:4 6
Fixed inventory: 15 21 21...
Economic Assumptions
Fixed inventory/pen
Fixed Yield= 75.0%
Average diet cost = $0.10 or $0.13/lb
($4.00 vs $7.00 corn)
Fa...
152
391 399 386
0
100
200
300
400
500
--- 2:2:2 2:4 6
9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0
IOFFC,$/Pen
Low Revenue, High Feed Cost
452
745 767 ...
• Alleviating stocking density pressure by marketing
pigs prior to dumping the barn may be a helpful tool
to increase reve...
Dr. Josh Flohr - Estimating the Impact of Floor Space Allowance on Late-Finishing Pig Performance
Dr. Josh Flohr - Estimating the Impact of Floor Space Allowance on Late-Finishing Pig Performance
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Dr. Josh Flohr - Estimating the Impact of Floor Space Allowance on Late-Finishing Pig Performance

34 views

Published on

Estimating the Impact of Floor Space Allowance on Late-Finishing Pig Performance - Dr. Josh Flohr, Nutriquest, from the 2016 Allen D. Leman Swine Conference, September 17-20, 2016, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

More presentations at http://www.swinecast.com/2016-leman-swine-conference-material

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Dr. Josh Flohr - Estimating the Impact of Floor Space Allowance on Late-Finishing Pig Performance

  1. 1. J. R. Flohr, PhD NutriQuest, Mason City, IA Leman Conference September, 2016
  2. 2. Introduction • Kornegay and Notter (1983) were the first to develop prediction equations for the effect of floor space on growth. • Powell et al. (1993) published updated equations based on additional data from the NCR-89 committee (1993). • Gonyou et al. (2006) developed floor space prediction equations for ADG and ADFI. Recognized as the most widely used predictor of floor space effects on pig growth. Gonyou et al. 2006
  3. 3. Marketing Events • Increases in available resources for those pigs remaining in pens (trough space, water space, floor space). • Alterations in the social hierarchy of the pen. • Does removing the heaviest pig(s) change the social hierarchy? • Average BW is reduced and the variation in within pen BW is reduced as well.
  4. 4. Introduction • Other social factors have been implicated with floor space as influencers of growth performance. • Group size (number of pigs per pen) • Feeder space • Water space (number of pigs per waterer) • Floor type • Genotype • Temperature • Gender
  5. 5. Database development • Data from both refereed and non-refereed publications were included. • Studies evaluating floor space effects on growth performance and papers evaluating floor space effects after pigs were removed from the pen. • Inclusion criteria included: • Contained information on study length, initial BW, final BW, ADG, ADFI, G:F, feeder space, water space, group size, and floor type. • Studies had to report SE or SD terms for treatment mean estimates. • Papers conducted in WF facilities were not included. Papers Experiments EU, ADG EU, ADFI and G:F Database 30 40 112 107 Publication dates from 1983 to 2014
  6. 6. Predictor variables • k (0.016 to 0.052) • Floor space, m2 (0.21 to 1.39 m2) • Study length, d (10 to 133) • Initial BW, kg (18 to 118 kg) • Final BW, kg (45 to 141 kg) • Feeder space (pigs per feeder hole, 2 to 12) • Water space (pigs per waterer, 4 to 28) • Group size (pigs per pen, 3 to 52) • Floor type (totally slatted or partially slatted) • Gender
  7. 7. Final Models BIC ADG, g =337.57+(16,468 × k)-(237,350 × k2)-(3.1209 × Initial BW, kg)+(2.5690 × Final BW, kg)+(71.6918 × k × Initial BW, kg) 1,183 ADFI, g =833.41+(24,785 × k)-(388,998 × k2)-(3.0027 × Initial BW, kg)+(11.2460 × Final BW, kg)+(187.61 × k × Initial BW, kg) 1,317 G:F = Predicted ADG/Predicted ADFI 758
  8. 8. 806 813 816 807 828 847 750 800 850 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.60 0.65 0.70 ADG,gComparing ADG across weight ranges Space, m2: 25 to 80 kg 80 to 130 kg
  9. 9. Comparing ADFI effects across weight ranges 25 to 80 kg 80 to 130 kg 2202 2212 2216 2765 2805 2843 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.60 0.65 0.70 PredictedADFI,g
  10. 10. Comparing GF effects across weight ranges 25 to 80 kg 80 to 130 kg 0.366 0.367 0.368 0.292 0.295 0.298 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.60 0.65 0.70 PredictedG:F
  11. 11. Conclusions • Assembled a robust database with published papers spanning the last 31 years. • General linear mixed models conclude that increasing k increases ADG and ADFI, but with diminishing returns (k2); additionally ADG and ADFI are impacted by pig initial and final BW. • G:F models fit their respective databases suggesting floor space does impact feed efficiency.
  12. 12. Intercept adjustment • Discrepancies in health, genetics, and other environmental factors can influence growth. • To adjust the prediction equations developed herein to specific farm performance the y- intercept can be adjusted by calculating the difference in predicted vs. actual growth at a known floor space allowance.
  13. 13. Space calculator (www.KSUswine.org)
  14. 14. Predicted Growth (240-300) Average pig wt at Marketing,lb Overall Period 1 and 2 (240-300 lbs) 240 260 ADG ADFI F/G Pigs marketed, n 0 0 1.87 6.53 3.49 0 2 1.91 6.63 3.47 0 4 1.97 6.75 3.43 0 6 2.03 6.88 3.39 2 0 1.94 6.68 3.44 2 2 1.99 6.79 3.41 2 4 2.05 6.93 3.38
  15. 15. J. R. Flohr1*, M. D. Tokach1, S. S. Dritz1, R. D. Goodband1, J. M. DeRouchey1, J. F. Patience2, and G. Gourley3 1Kansas State University, Manhattan 2Iowa State University, Ames 3Gourley Research Group, LLC, Webster City, IA This project was supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2014-68004-30336 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture
  16. 16. Objective • Evaluate initial stocking density and marketing removal strategies on the growth of finishing pigs up to 310 lb. • Validate the efficacy of Gonyou et al. (2006) and Flohr et al. (2015) prediction equations for the effects of floor space allowance on growth performance.
  17. 17. Materials and Methods • A total of 1,092 pigs (PIC 359 × Genetiporc F25; initially 80.0 lb) were used in a 117-d study. • Pigs were allotted to pens at weaning based on gender and at initiation of the study (approximately 8 wk postweaning) pens were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 experimental treatments in a generalized randomized block design.
  18. 18. Materials and Methods • Experimental Treatments • 1. Initial floor space allowance of 9.8 ft2 (15 pigs/pen) with no pigs removed until 310 lb (Pos Control). • 2. Initial floor space allowance of 7.0 ft2 (21 pigs/pen) and 2 pigs removed on d 64, 76, and 95 (2:2:2). • 3. Initial floor space allowance of 7.0 ft2 (21 pigs/pen) and 2 pigs removed on d 76 and 4 pigs removed on d 105 (2:4). • 4. Initial floor space allowance of 7.0 ft2 (21 pigs/pen) and 6 pigs removed on d 105 (6).
  19. 19. Materials and Methods • For pens stocked at 9.8 ft2 (15 pigs per pen), 1 hole per feeder was blocked providing linear trough space of 2.3 to 2.4 in/pig for all pigs. • In case of removals from pens, front gates were adjusted to maintain the experimental floor space allowance. • Pigs were fed common corn-soybean meal based diets with 20% DDGS and 3% added fat. Diets were fed in 4 consecutive phases and were formulated to meet or exceed NRC 2012 requirements.
  20. 20. Treatment Initial floor space, ft2: 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 Marketing strategy: --- 2:2:2 2:4 6 Day of study d 64 --- 2 (10%) --- --- d 76 --- 2 (10%) 2 (10%) --- d 95 --- 2 (10%) --- --- d 105 --- --- 4 (20%) 6 (30%) d 117 15 15 15 15 Total pigs marketed 15 21 21 21 Timeline of marketing events
  21. 21. 15 vs. 21 pigs per pen 15 21
  22. 22. Effect of initial stocking density and marketing strategy on ADG floor space, ft2: 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 Marketing strategy: --- 2:2:2 2:4 6 ADG, % d 0 to 64 100% 97% 95% 95% d 64 to 76 100% 101% 91% 95% d 76 to 95 100% 94% 90% 89% d 95 to 105 100% 107% 103% 87% d 105 to 117 100% 102% 105% 104% Bold values are periods following a marketing event
  23. 23. Effect of initial Stocking density and marketing strategy on ADFI Bolded values are periods following a marketing event Floor space, ft2: 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 Marketing strategy: --- 2:2:2 2:4 6 ADFI, % d 0 to 64 100% 95% 94% 95% d 64 to 76 100% 96% 92% 94% d 76 to 95 100% 93% 91% 93% d 95 to 105 100% 100% 97% 91% d 105 to 117 100% 95% 95% 93%
  24. 24. d 0 to 117 ADG, lb 2.04 1.99 1.95 1.92 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 --- 2:2:2 2:4 6 ADG,lb SEM = 0.02 a a,b b,c c Space, ft2: Marketing strategy:
  25. 25. d 0 to 117 ADFI, lb 5.69 5.28 5.26 5.28 5.00 5.20 5.40 5.60 5.80 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 --- 2:2:2 2:4 6 ADFI,lb SEM = 0.05 a b b b Space, ft2: Marketing strategy:
  26. 26. d 0 to 117 F/G 2.79 2.65 2.70 2.75 2.60 2.75 2.90 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 --- 2:2:2 2:4 6 F/G SEM = 0.02 c a a,b b,c Space, ft2: Marketing strategy:
  27. 27. Average BW of pigs marketed, kg Treatment Floor space, ft2 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 Marketing strategy: --- 2:2:2 2:4 6 BW, lb d 64 --- 236.1 --- --- d 76 --- 253.5 264.9 --- d 95 --- 288.9 --- --- d 105 --- --- 309.5 308.5 d 117 319.3 305.1 298.7 297.6 Weighted average 319.3a 291.6c 297.4b,c 301.1b a,b within row, P < 0.05
  28. 28. d 0 to 117 Adjusted F/G 2.75 2.74 2.77 2.79 2.60 2.75 2.90 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 --- 2:2:2 2:4 6 AdjustedF/G SEM = 0.02 Space, ft2: Marketing strategy:
  29. 29. CV of BW within pen Treatment Floor space, ft2 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 Marketing strategy: --- 2:2:2 2:4 6 d 0 16 15 15 14 d 64 (Before) 13 11 12 12 d 64 (After) --- 10 --- --- d 76 (Before) 12 9 11 11 d 76 (After) --- 9 10 --- d 95 (Before) 10 8 9 9 d 95 (After) --- 7 --- --- d 105 (Before) 9 7 8 9 D 105 (After) --- --- 7 7 d 117 9 7 7 7
  30. 30. Economic Factors Treatment Floor space, ft2: 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 Marketing strategy: --- 2:2:2 2:4 6 Fixed inventory: 15 21 21 21 SEM Total wt gain/pen, lb 3,534a 4,479a 4,592a 4,578a 60 Total wt gain/pig, lb 243a 220c 227b,c 231b 2 Feed usage/pen, lb 10,003c 11,793b 12,271a 12,271a 102 Feed usage/pig, lb 667a 562c 584b 602b 5 Morbidity & Mortality, % 2.9 2.9 3.6 5.4 1.3
  31. 31. Economic Assumptions Fixed inventory/pen Fixed Yield= 75.0% Average diet cost = $0.10 or $0.13/lb ($4.00 vs $7.00 corn) Facility cost= $0.11/7.0ft2/day Base carcass price of $0.60 or $0.80/lb Premium/discount, $/Cwt, kg = 0.00012*HCW, kg3 – 0.0517*HCW, kg2 + 6.39716*HCW, kg – 257.5824
  32. 32. 152 391 399 386 0 100 200 300 400 500 --- 2:2:2 2:4 6 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 IOFFC,$/Pen Low Revenue, High Feed Cost 452 745 767 765 300 400 500 600 700 800 --- 2:2:2 2:4 6 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 IOFFC,$/Pen Low Revenue, Low Feed Cost 690 1,059 1,083 1,082 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 --- 2:2:2 2:4 6 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 IOFFC,$/Pen High Revenue, High Feed Cost 990 1,412 1,451 1,461 900 1100 1300 1500 --- 2:2:2 2:4 6 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 IOFFC,$/Pen High Revenue, Low Feed Cost
  33. 33. • Alleviating stocking density pressure by marketing pigs prior to dumping the barn may be a helpful tool to increase revenue due to feed savings and improved performance of pigs remaining in the pen. • In this study, it appeared that the use of one or two marketing points were the most economically relevant strategies. • However, additional labor and transport cost should be considered with the additional marketing points. Conclusions

×